Originally posted by greshnik
...one more thing: it may be better not to let the "pseudo skeptics" know that we know who they are. If they get exposed, they will change tactics
and evolve. They may be even harder to trace.

Maybe we should round them up, fit them with radio tracking collars and then release them back into the wild. . .! But that would allow them to breed
and evolve. Oh my god what a horrible thought.
Have you listened to yourself?

You probably did not understand me...I don't mean "evolve" like animals etc...I mean evolve with the ways of pretending to be something else here
on the forum - if we can recognize them by their typical way of behavior, they will change it - write different style, maybe do a better job of
pretending to be someone else.

I am talking about thousands of tricks (even kids these days know those) that can be used on a forum like this.

I hope this explains it. If you don't think that there are "pseudo skeptics", or if you think that I have illusions...please just say so

While I appreciate your thread, I have to admit it does send a certain message.

There are some topics here on ATS that I do not agree with and when I and others like me post on those topics with credible scientific evidence
contrary to the OP beliefs we are then labeled dis-info agents and government stooges.

The burden of proof is usually(depending on the topic) on both sides of the debate or at least it should be. So if the opposing side to any debate is
able to provide scientific data, proof, evidence etc then that is all part of what ATS is about no? I always believed that ATS stood for something
more than "Heres my topic and if you don't agree then you are a paid government shill"

The main theme at ATS is "DENY IGNORANCE", well that cuts both ways on both sides of ANY debate.

when I make a post, I would encourage anyone to participate regardless whether or not they agree, at least with a debate with good evidence presented
by both sides we can get down to the nitty gritty truth of the matter hopefully, that and perhaps it will open my mind to another way of looking at
the subject at hand.

Im sorry it just seems to me that with this post you are making it out that anyone who disagrees with a post is automatically a dis-info agent and
that people who feel that their own posts are being dissected by posters who do not share their belief but still provide plenty of evidence and
scientific data contrary to the OP to get down to the truth, will start thinking that all who don't agree with them are dis info agents etc.

I'd be interested to read what you consider to be the difference between a debunker, a pseudo-skeptic and an ordinary skeptic?

Justice, sorry, but I don't want to elaborate on that - I have said what I had to say already.
We can discuss about the definitions...forever. I know what I know, and I use my knowledge the best way I can. I cannot teach anyone, nor do I think
that anyone cares what my definition of "skeptic" is.

If you think that I am totally wrong, and all I said was a total rubbish, that is fine with me. Let's just move on...life is beautiful, spring is in
the air

I'd be interested to read what you consider to be the difference between a debunker, a pseudo-skeptic and an ordinary skeptic?

Justice, sorry, but I don't want to elaborate on that - I have said what I had to say already.
We can discuss about the definitions...forever. I know what I know, and I use my knowledge the best way I can. I cannot teach anyone, nor do I think
that anyone cares what my definition of "skeptic" is.

If you think that I am totally wrong, and all I said was a total rubbish, that is fine with me. Let's just move on...life is beautiful, spring is in
the air

Well let me give you my definition then and you can argue against it as you see fit. Debunker.
Someone who attacks the OP and ridicules out of the norm ideas without even bothering to examine the facts. They see themselves as protecting the
current scientific norm. Pseudo-skeptic.
Often tries to ridicule a subject by stating personal involvement before making irrational or ridiculous claims which usually run side by side with
the topic being discussed. They may, for instance, say they believe in aliens and then go on to describe meeting one on a tube train who told him how
lovely it is on Mars and how all aliens love listening to heavy metal. Skeptic.
Someone who converses rationally with a believer but expresses how the believer may have his/her thinking corrupted by dodgy science or sloppy
thinking.

But to be honest, I don't think it matters which of the above you entered into debate with here on the hallowed pages of ATS. If they dared go
against your beliefs you, unfortunately, would out them as one of your pseudo skeptics.
My friend, you believe in what you want. It's a free world. Just accept that evidence for the existence of ghosts, aliens, the perfect woman and non
fattening beer is slight and tenuous to say the least.
Happy St Patricks Day to you.

Originally posted by Cuhail
As a former Mod, I can attest that there is no conspiracy against the general membership, by the Mods, in the unseen areas of ATS.
The process of reviewing Anon Posts is done by review and committee. (my emphasis - rich23)

'Nuff said.

The mods do a great job, unpaid, and I want to say I do appreciate it.

I'd like to think I'm healthily suspicious rather than paranoid, and I think my posting history will show I'm always open to reasonable argument
and more than able to fess up to mistakes if I'm persuaded I'm in the wrong.

For what it's worth, here are my definitions of the terms you picked up on. If you review the thread in detail, you'll get more of an idea of why
I've defined these terms thusly:

Debunker

Someone who is out to "debunk" a hypothesis or assertion at any cost: they may be being paid to do so or they may be driven by psychological
necessity. An example of the former is J. Allen Hynek when he came up with the infamous "marsh gas" explanation for a UFO case - exactly which one
I can't remember. From Jacques Vallee's views in Forbidden Science (well worth a read imho), Hynek, while working for Blue Book, knew full
well that it was just a front and occasionally had to perform duties of debunking that actually sat rather badly with his own convictions.

There is also good reason to believe that Philip Klass was a paid debunker: NASA has one or two people they routinely wheel out who seem to fulfil
this function.

At any rate, it's almost invariably someone with an agenda.

Pseudo-skeptic

Someone who considers himself to be a skeptic but actually invariably espouses the accepted/conventional view of things. This type is generally not
given to questioning conventional wisdom and usually attacks those who do. I would say that these people have much in common with the
right wing authoritarian personality type and is very much
the "follower" type who cheerleads on forums like James Randi's.

Zetetic

A genuine skeptic who will question and/or reevaluate just about anything given reason to do so. I'd place myself in this camp. Usually
criticised for being "gullible" by the pseudo-skeptics.

In posts earlier in this thread I have more to say about the early split in CSICOP and how the zetetics tend to leave because they're intellectually
honest, whereas the pseudos aren't.

Someone who is out to "debunk" a hypothesis or assertion at any cost: they may be being paid to do so or they may be driven by psychological
necessity. An example of the former is J. Allen Hynek when he came up with the infamous "marsh gas" explanation for a UFO case - exactly which one
I can't remember. From Jacques Vallee's views in Forbidden Science (well worth a read imho), Hynek, while working for Blue Book, knew full
well that it was just a front and occasionally had to perform duties of debunking that actually sat rather badly with his own convictions.

There is also good reason to believe that Philip Klass was a paid debunker: NASA has one or two people they routinely wheel out who seem to fulfil
this function.

At any rate, it's almost invariably someone with an agenda.

Pseudo-skeptic

Someone who considers himself to be a skeptic but actually invariably espouses the accepted/conventional view of things. This type is generally not
given to questioning conventional wisdom and usually attacks those who do. I would say that these people have much in common with the
right wing authoritarian personality type and is very much
the "follower" type who cheerleads on forums like James Randi's.

Zetetic

A genuine skeptic who will question and/or reevaluate just about anything given reason to do so. I'd place myself in this camp. Usually
criticised for being "gullible" by the pseudo-skeptics.

In posts earlier in this thread I have more to say about the early split in CSICOP and how the zetetics tend to leave because they're intellectually
honest, whereas the pseudos aren't.

Its important that people remember that everyone else is a person too. Not all people who attempt to debunk you or be an avid skeptic are disinfo
agents!

Some people do it to be smart, some do it because they like to disrupt everyone else or go against the grain, others might do it because
they follow the medias example, or because they fear being called a "conspiracy freak." Some people simply believe what they want to and refuse to
accept things no matter what facts are presented to them! Anyway those are some examples I can think of that would cause a person to appear to be a
disinformant.

However it would be foolish given how many members and traffic this site has to think there is NOT some presense of people with agendas, employed by
various agencies, countries, religions, corporations and other much more nefarious groups. . .

There are those who fear the very prospect of a website like this one, full of information that can not be controlled.

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
Very good definitions rich23! Starred for that.

You are most kind.

Its important that people remember that everyone else is a person too. Not all people who attempt to debunk you or be an avid skeptic are
disinfo agents!

Absolutely. Sometimes it's hard to tell the sockpuppets from the pure and simple idiots...

There are those who fear the very prospect of a website like this one, full of information that can not be controlled.

But there is also the possibility that this site is monitored as a "temperature-taking" exercise as well. How are people becoming accustomed
to the official line? How many of the people sticking upt for the official line (on the 9/11 forum, say) are not "our" sockpuppets?

Its important that people remember that everyone else is a person too. Not all people who attempt to debunk you or be an avid skeptic are disinfo
agents!

Absolutely. Sometimes it's hard to tell the sockpuppets from the pure and simple idiots...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So anyone who doesn't go along with your beliefs or who questions them is either a sock puppet or an idiot? So it's not up for debate? You, and
those that agree with you are right, and all those who aren't convinced are fools?
Are you serious?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
So anyone who doesn't go along with your beliefs or who questions them is either a sock puppet or an idiot?

Unfortunately, it seems this immature, arrogant or deluded attitude is rampant on ATS as of late. Anyone who disagrees, no matter to what degree, is
a stooge, disinformant or "attacking" those they are disagreeing with. Of course, I doubt these accusations are sincere; rather they are designed
for much the same reason this thread was designed.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
So anyone who doesn't go along with your beliefs or who questions them is either a sock puppet or an idiot? So it's not up for debate? You, and
those that agree with you are right, and all those who aren't convinced are fools?
Are you serious?

Well... I can see how it's come across, but there is a little more to it than that..

First, if you've seen many of my posts you'll know that I am happy to be corrected if I think someone's made a valid point. I don't necessarily
cling to an opinion out of sheer pig-headedness.

Secondly, I used the word sometimes. That's actually rather important.

Whatever the topic, it's always up for debate. But there are instances in which people aren't debating. A lot of
sock-puppetry falls below the level of debate, and resorts to insult, obfuscation or simple assertion without recourse to evidence or argument. On
those occasions, someone might be being a sockpuppet,,, or just an idiot.

It's those cases I was thinking of when I made what seems, when put baldly, to be a rather arrogant statement.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
So anyone who doesn't go along with your beliefs or who questions them is either a sock puppet or an idiot?

Unfortunately, it seems this immature, arrogant or deluded attitude is rampant on ATS as of late. Anyone who disagrees, no matter to what degree, is
a stooge, disinformant or "attacking" those they are disagreeing with. Of course, I doubt these accusations are sincere; rather they are designed
for much the same reason this thread was designed.

Well I ain't no agent, and as one poster pointed out, I may be just an idiot,

I as far as my topics go, gee, I am not arrogant, I am just trying to save the world.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.